Saga Did Lucas understand politics?

I am a Political Science major and I love when my two passions overlap (SW and Poli Sci). Over the years I have often heard complaints regarding a seeming lack of understanding of politics on the part of Lucas.

Is that a fair appraisal of the situation? Did he get anything right? Any critiques?

 

Did he understand politics on the technical level of a political science major? No, of course not.

Did he understand the essence of politics to a degree that he was able to express novel truths about it on an artistic level? Yes, very much so.

 

Which parts did he allegedly not understand?

 

Yes, but that's beside the point. You don't need a major in political science to know that, or to understand politics.

My question is regarding the claim that he did not understand politics to the point of it being a source of complaint (although I'm not familiar with any, hence the question). What's the basis for it? Did Lucas do something wrong that shows a lack of understanding? Which parts did he not understand?

Without that it's an empty accusation, independently of the knowledge Lucas might or might not have on the topic.

 

I think Lucas' has a pretty solid grasp on politics, but from a different angle than a political science major might. At college he studied anthropology and sociology, and he has more or less stated that that is his groundwork for understanding things. He also is a history buff, and he came out of the generation grappling with Nixon's corruption and the horrors of Vietnam. I think all those things informed his view on politics; in a sense, he takes a long-view assessment of the situation. For a deeper look at his understanding of things like that, I'd recommend taking a look at THX-1138. The film itself speaks volumes of Lucas' insights into the nature of modern society, but if you listen to the commentary you get to hear it more, straight from his mouth (and Walter Murch's).

 

I think the line "well then they should be made to agree" is pretty chilling and astute.

 

If you're going to claim that "Lucas didn't understand politics" (or make any other claim, for that matter), the onus lies with you. You'll have to argue why you think Lucas didn't understand politics--and why that's relevant or important. Until then it's just hot air.

 

What have you heard?

 

I don't know whether Lucas understands politics or not. Do any of us know really? He does, though, understand history and as the PT shows particularly the Roman legal structure.

 

I think he understands politics/history all too well. As others have been pointed out, his world view is informed by the events that shaped him--Nixon and Vietnam. How Palpatine orchestrated, manipulated or manufactured each crisis, allowing him to further consolidate power is one of the better aspects of the prequels. The point that democracies are not simply toppled from the outside, but can rot and be transformed by the inside (as has happened repeatedly historically). His recurring theme, of less technologically advanced societies overcoming better equipped militaries in battle is on-point.

I'd agree that you should check out THX-1138. Which speaks to materialism, mass control, how authoritarianism can strip individuals of their humanity and the will/fear to escape it

 

He understood ENOUGH. I mean he may not have been spot on about every single detail but the idea of a charismatic manipulator playing a situation to slowly erode democracy and create a totalitarian state does work, albeit there are fantastic elements like the force involved. I think the people who don't think Lucas understood politics (at the large scale level at least) are doing him a disservice.

 

I never heard criticism that Lucas didn't understand politics... only that he had too much of it in the Prequels.

So, @libraryMom1, I think what you heard is mistaken. Lucas has been criticized on many things, but this is the first criticism I've ever heard on this, and since you don't provide any examples, then I don't think it's valid criticism (being a Political Science major who went on to get a Master's degree in Public Administration myself).

 

It is my view that Lucas interwove a tapestry of political commentary throughout the films and story adaptations. The political commentary is largely not in the foreground of the films. What I mean by that is the hero's journey takes place on the main stage. In the background of the hero's journey, a galactic struggle against tyranny takes place. These will be the defining moments -- in the hero's journey -- and perhaps for all of history in the galaxy.

 

"This idea of a democracy being given up and in many cases being given up in a time of crisis, you see it throughout history whether it's Julius Caesar, or Napoleon, or Adolf Hitler, you see these democracies under a lot of pressure, in a crisis situation, who end up giving up a lot of the freedoms they have and a lot of the checks and balances to somebody with a strong authority to help get them through the crisis. It's not the first time a politician has created a war to try to stay in office."

--George Lucas, Leonard Maltin interview, 1999.

"To get an idea of the kind of man Palpatine is in the prequel trilogy you need to read about the Roman Emperor, Julius Caesar, and his spectacular rise to power in Rome."

--George Lucas, Leonard Maltin interview, 1999

One of the larger issues that surfaced in the telling of Anakin's fall to the dark side and his rise to becoming a corrupt figure was that of the fall of democracy at the hands of the very people who initially fought oppression.

"You have the personal issue of Anakin and his turn to the dark side, but then the children later bring him back to being a human being," Lucas says. "But the larger issue is that you've given up your democracy, and that the bad guys never took it -- it was handed to them. That theme was there 30 years ago which came out of the Vietnam War and Nixon wanting to change the rules so he could get a third term."

"I'm a big history buff and I was really into Caesar at the time," Lucas recalls. "I always wanted to know why the Roman Senate gave Caesar's nephew a dictatorship after they had gotten rid of Caesar. Why after the revolution in France did they create an Emperor? Why did the Germans after they had a Democracy after World War I, turn it into a dictatorship? Those were my initial questions 30 years ago."

--George Lucas, Star Wars Homing Beacon #142.

 

Brilliantly put. That is my first time hearing Nixon wanted a third term. I would like to believe it. Similarly, there were people in Washington trying to change the rules so Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president.

 

It's probably not so much a misunderstanding as some deliberate simplifications, to be more persuasive and/or just a more engaging story. But authoritarians and outright dictators often do rise to power because there is a genuine crisis, the dictators don't take over just by force (well sometimes they do) but they take over because there's a plausible threat that some other faction could take over by force (or the country otherwise collapse) and that needs to be avoided. In the prequels there was a bit of a crisis situation but with the twist that the leader of the government was also the leader of the rebels, controlling both factions, which is OK, interesting, but a little manipulative.

Lucas also tends to think or prefer to portray conflict as black vs. white, good vs. evil, when often enough both major factions agree on major issues. He loves to hate Nixon and regard the Vietnam war as America being evil, if so it's at least worth admitting that Nixon didn't start American involvement in the war, most politicians of both parties, obviously including predecessor President Johnson, and a lot of the public initially and for years supported it-and even more supported the general idea that Communism should be contained. It's probably up to the beholder whether you think public opinion is just being manipulated or genuinely supports what the politicians are doing.

Another complaint can be that Lucas tries to mix having democracy and monarchy, there can be constitutional monarchy but Amidala seemed not just a ceremonial figurehead.

Lastly, it was a bit of a flaw that we had so little idea what the Separatists were fighting for and why the Republic thought that would be so terrible (although I guess the latter can easily be inferred).

 

Lucas knows that Nixon didn't start America's involvement in Vietnam. But when it came out that he prolonged the war through backdoor maneuvering, because he didn't want Johnson to have the boost, that's why he targets Nixon, who prolonged a crisis for personal political gain. Note that in ROTS, Palpatine keeps prolonging the war, in order to gain more political power.

Naboo's monarchy is meant to represent the democratic process and having it akin to the presidential/prime minister offices in most democratic institutions. It was to illustrate that people need to have leaders with limitations, so that they don't become emperors. It was a simplifying way of making this point.

 

He did enough to make the films. Some of the problems weren't because of a misunderstanding, they were with the execution of the scenes. (particularly in TPM and AOTC).

 

ehh i would say he has about as much as the average person does. Or at least he didn't care enough in the PT to really define the political structure of Naboo. I mean electing a queen is a weird way to go.

Perhaps its just him making a poltical structure that serves the plot he wants in the movie but of course not thinking out enough to see if it could actually work.

 

In the early drafts, Lucas just used emperor as a title for the Old Empire that was benevolent and then the tyrannical Empire that replaced it. Lucas realized that it would be too confusing so it changed it President and Emperor for the Republic and the Empire. But president as a title didn't fit so he changed it to Chancellor since it had the same connotations as President. But to avoid confusing audiences and to be more direct, he gave us an elected monarchy since could drive the point home and not confuse audiences if Padme was Chancellor Amidala who talks to Chancellor Valorum.

The overall point, though, is that it shows the differences between Padme, a democratically elected leader who cedes power when it is time, versus Palpatine, who holds onto the power in order to become a tyrant.

 

"I wanted to emphasize the point that the Republic was a democracy. I thought I'd made it clear in 'The Phantom Menace' that Padme was an elected official, but that point seemed to go right by everybody. Probably because I used the word Queen, which suggested an inherited position of power. However, I had intended it as a designation of a ruler, like President. I only used the Princess/Queen/Knight terminology because I was harking back to King Arthur and other romantic periods.

"This time, I wanted to reestablish the fact that Padme had been ELECTED as Queen, served her two terms of office, and then stepped down. It's the opposite of what Palpatine does. His term has run out in the intervening ten years, but he has been 'reluctantly' convinced to stay in office; as we go on, he'll be 'reluctantly' convinced to stay in office even longer. I wanted Padme's character to be the example of what leaders SHOULD do, which is serve their term, then leave. The idea on Naboo is that you do your service when you're very young -- 12 to 21 -- then you retire, have a family, and live the rest of your life. Padme is an exception because she's now 24. She did her service, but then she became a Senator because Queen Jamillia asked her to."

-- George Lucas, Mythmaking: Behind the Scenes of Attack of the Clones

"Queen" is just a title. It's meant to confer a sense of fairy tale nobility to Padme as a ruler, appropriate for the romantic fantasy setting of Star Wars. But politically speaking, she is essentially a democratically elected president.

The same goes for Leia. She may be called "Princess," but she really is a democratically elected senator. The "Princess" title is just fantasy flavoring.

I assure you that George Lucas understands perfectly well that historical monarchs were not actually elected by the general public in the same manner as a modern day democratic leader.

 

Bail is Senator Organa, but Breha is Queen Breha. Leia is both a Senator and a Princess (by adoption).

The newcanon makes it pretty clear that Alderaan is a constitutional monarchy and that the monarch does not serve limited terms the way they do on Naboo.